Thank you. As this is a Courthouse, it would be wise to evaluate the numerous trip hazards on Church St. (the entire path of travel from the ramp to the parking garage) at the same time and most cost-effective to make any needed repairs in a single undertaking, as required.

Sorry, my last comment was for Wall St. Multitasking.

LCI has an update about this issue:

Area inspected by Public Works 4/25/2023. The City hopes to install a ramp in the future.

This issue was recategorized from Accessibility for Persons with Disabilities to Long Term Infrastructure Project.

LCI Citywide Helper unassigned this issue.

Long term Infrastructure project?

This issue was recategorized because the City needs to go through their internal process to add a ramp at this location. We believe this is the proper category for such a request.

Thank you for reporting this concern.

I suggest/request that Engineering rethink College St., both with some respect for the rights of people with disabilities but also because it makes no sense to have curbside parking and a "protected" bike lane outside of that. If cars have to cross the bike lane to park, it really isn't "protected."

The city cannot, as it did when it instituted the outdoor seating policy, completely deny people with disabilities the right to access College St. Music Hall.

It CANNOT do that.

How will a ramp remove the encroachment by these businesses???

The ramp is part of the solution for providing ADA access.

LCI staff defers to Public Space enforcement staff about the encroachment concern. LCI is not involved in the Outdoor Seating program.

I understand and appreciate that LCI is trying to be helpful but everyone has a right to access College St. Music Hall - today, tomorrow and next week, not when DPW gets around to it. It's no different than saying "we'll remove the whites-only and coloreds-only restrooms in some future major project." This is an existing denial of a basic civil-right caused by a discriminatory policy.

You may wish to refer this to the Corporation Counsel - https://www.justice.gov/usao-ct/pr/college-street-music-hall-new-haven-will-increase-accessibility-comply-ada

Public Space Inspectors followed up and all restaurants are in compliance with the 5' width requirement.

I knew that if LCI got involved, the first checkbox in ending this discrimination could be checked off. That is greatly appreciated but it's only the first step.

Ignoring for a moment that the hyperfocus on individual specifications is an evasion technique that serves to avoid compliance...that's not even true..

In this case, evasion is accomplished by ignoring the requirement that the "path of travel" defined by that minimum width MUST itself be traversable to someone in a wheelchair. It is not.

Even if that measurement was correct, this is only compliant if one ignores:
The numerous changes in vertical level that exceed the "absolute maximum' of 1/2"
The loose and/or broken slate that is not "stable, frim and slip-resistant"

The City of New Haven doesn't get to pick and choose which requirement it needs to meet. It MUST meet ALL of them...and, apparently, lessons in how to use a tape measure.

Can we not waste everyone's time please. No amount of obfuscation is going to make this access route ADA-compliant. replacing these slate slabs or providing an alternate pedestrian travel route are the only options.

My opinion is that the authorities should make this problem public, because this is usually the fastest way to solve it, I wrote about https://papersowl.com/examples/censorship/ censorship and I understand that a lot of news is censored, I think this is a major problem that needs to be solved.

Ignoring for a moment that the five-foot wide path that the city claims is open is - duh - not traversable to someone in a wheelchair - duh, duh, duh - the city either:

Lied about that width.
Are not competent to use a tape measure.
Most likely, ignored the fact that the barriers are temporary and moveable, said, 'It's wide enough now, let's get out of here before they move them.

This is part of a pattern of misrepresenting facts. the requirements of Federal law and a group of able people intentionality discriminating against the members of a protected class who are not like them.

What the city claims is o obviously not true that you don't even need to measure it.

Can someone point out the accessible path of travel?

It's probably unwise for City of New Haven to wait tor the personal-injury lawsuit after these slabs fall into the apparent void under them to begin to end the systemic pattern of discrimination against people who have disabilities that it is very obviously guilty of. An able person might get hurt. We can't have that. Discrimination, yeah, but we can let able people suffer too.

Why is this like this if people just went out and determined that there's no problem here?

https://dralegal.org/case/barden-v-sacramento/

Issue 14400673 has been marked as a duplicate of this issue.

Issue 15117294 has been marked as a duplicate of this issue.

Issue 14026101 has been marked as a duplicate of this issue.

Issue 16158479 has been marked as a duplicate of this issue.